Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal to add the bitcoin symbol to Unicode

[Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev]

Very cool! Thanks for tackling this.


On 09/05/2015 04:11 PM, Ken Shirriff via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Use of the bitcoin symbol in text is inconvenient, because the bitcoin
> symbol isn't in the Unicode standard. To fix this, I've written a
> proposal to have the common B-with-vertical-bars bitcoin symbol added to
> Unicode. I've successfully proposed a new character for Unicode before,
> so I'm familiar with the process and think this has a good chance of
> succeeding. The proposal is at http://righto.com/bitcoin-unicode.pdf
> 
> I received a suggestion to run this proposal by the bitcoin-dev group,
> so I hope this email is appropriate here. Endorsement by Bitcoin
> developers will help the Unicode Committee realize the importance of
> adding this symbol, so please let me know if you support this proposal. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Ken
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> 


___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP/Draft] BIP Acceptance Process

[Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev]

Okay for sure yeah writing another proposal that reflects the current state
of affairs as people see it might provide some interesting perspective on
this proposal. I would welcome that.

Greg: With no other direct comments appearing to be inbound I'd like to
move forward with this one and get a number assigned to it. Thanks!

Thanks to all for the discussion!

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Luke Dashjr  wrote:

> On Friday, September 04, 2015 9:36:42 PM Andy Chase wrote:
> > I understand your concerns. What kinds of changes do you think should go
> > through a process like this? Just hard forks?
>
> The process loses meaning if it doesn't reflect reality. So only hardforks
> should go through the hardfork process; only softforks through the softfork
> process; etc. Trying to make one-size-fits-all just means de facto accepted
> BIPs wouldn't be recognised as such because nobody cares to meet the higher
> requirements.
>
> Luke
>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal to add the bitcoin symbol to Unicode

[Theo Chino via bitcoin-dev]

Ken,

What do I do to second and join you ?

Theo Chino
New York

On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ken Shirriff via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Use of the bitcoin symbol in text is inconvenient, because the bitcoin
> symbol isn't in the Unicode standard. To fix this, I've written a proposal
> to have the common B-with-vertical-bars bitcoin symbol added to Unicode.
> I've successfully proposed a new character for Unicode before, so I'm
> familiar with the process and think this has a good chance of succeeding.
> The proposal is at http://righto.com/bitcoin-unicode.pdf
>
> I received a suggestion to run this proposal by the bitcoin-dev group, so
> I hope this email is appropriate here. Endorsement by Bitcoin developers
> will help the Unicode Committee realize the importance of adding this
> symbol, so please let me know if you support this proposal.
>
> Thanks,
> Ken
>
>
>
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal to add the bitcoin symbol to Unicode

[Richard Moore via bitcoin-dev]

This might also be a useful page to look at:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_symbol

RicMoo

Sent from my self-aware iPhone

.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º>

Richard Moore ~ Founder
Genetic Mistakes Software Inc.
phone: (778) 882-6125
email: ric...@geneticmistakes.com
www: http://GeneticMistakes.com

> On Sep 5, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Ken Shirriff via bitcoin-dev 
>  wrote:
> 
> Use of the bitcoin symbol in text is inconvenient, because the bitcoin symbol 
> isn't in the Unicode standard. To fix this, I've written a proposal to have 
> the common B-with-vertical-bars bitcoin symbol added to Unicode. I've 
> successfully proposed a new character for Unicode before, so I'm familiar 
> with the process and think this has a good chance of succeeding. The proposal 
> is at http://righto.com/bitcoin-unicode.pdf
> 
> I received a suggestion to run this proposal by the bitcoin-dev group, so I 
> hope this email is appropriate here. Endorsement by Bitcoin developers will 
> help the Unicode Committee realize the importance of adding this symbol, so 
> please let me know if you support this proposal. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Ken
> 
> 
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[bitcoin-dev] Proposal to add the bitcoin symbol to Unicode

[Ken Shirriff via bitcoin-dev]

Use of the bitcoin symbol in text is inconvenient, because the bitcoin
symbol isn't in the Unicode standard. To fix this, I've written a proposal
to have the common B-with-vertical-bars bitcoin symbol added to Unicode.
I've successfully proposed a new character for Unicode before, so I'm
familiar with the process and think this has a good chance of succeeding.
The proposal is at http://righto.com/bitcoin-unicode.pdf

I received a suggestion to run this proposal by the bitcoin-dev group, so I
hope this email is appropriate here. Endorsement by Bitcoin developers will
help the Unicode Committee realize the importance of adding this symbol, so
please let me know if you support this proposal.

Thanks,
Ken
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43

[Christophe Biocca via bitcoin-dev]

I will point out that the current situation is not an accident:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=44 is a great
place to get some context for what happened. I believe you can also
find the other half of this discussion on the mailing list archives.

The cointypes being simple integers was how the code worked as shipped
(in the trezor), so changing the semantics after the fact wasn't a
possibility.

The BIP repository didn't want to constantly deal with updates
unrelated to Bitcoin proper, so a decision was made to move that part
of the standard to a repository willing to handle it.

On 5 September 2015 at 07:17, Jorge Timón
 wrote:
>
> On Sep 4, 2015 7:56 PM, "Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev"
>  wrote:
>>
>> On 09/03/2015 07:06 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> > Since BIP 43 is still a draft, I propose modifying it to refer non-
>> > Bitcoin purpose codes to the SLIP repository:
>> > https://doc.satoshilabs.com/slips/
>>
>> What benefit is created by delegating the BIP-43 namespace management to
>> that company in particular?
>>
>> BIP-43 as it is currently composed provides the convenient feature of
>> purpose codes matching the BIP number. Moving purpose codes to a
>> separate namespace add complexity to its usage for no discernible benefit.
> The "namespace" defined in BIP43 is acceptable. BIP44's is not:
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki#Registered_coin_types
>
> It defines a centralized registry controlld by a single company instead of
> having a way for different companies (or p2p chains like namecoin?) to
> maintain competing registries.
>
> Even better, it could use a code deterministically generated from the chain
> ID (the hash of the genesis block), completely removing the need for a
> registry in the first place.
>
>> --
>> Justus Ranvier
>> Open Bitcoin Privacy Project
>> http://www.openbitcoinprivacyproject.org/
>> jus...@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org
>> E7AD 8215 8497 3673 6D9E 61C4 2A5F DA70 EAD9 E623
>>
>> ___
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>
> ___
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: HD Bitmessage address derivation based on BIP-43

[Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev]

On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Christophe Biocca
 wrote:
> I will point out that the current situation is not an accident:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93=44 is a great
> place to get some context for what happened. I believe you can also
> find the other half of this discussion on the mailing list archives.
>
> The cointypes being simple integers was how the code worked as shipped
> (in the trezor), so changing the semantics after the fact wasn't a
> possibility.
>
> The BIP repository didn't want to constantly deal with updates
> unrelated to Bitcoin proper, so a decision was made to move that part
> of the standard to a repository willing to handle it.

This is in fact useful. The centralized registries themselves are fine
provided that we don't rely on having only one of them or in them
having the same values for the same chains.
Trezor can maintain its own too.
Future versions of Trezor could support full chain IDs instead of
these integers (or keep using these integers forever, whatever they
chose to do).

On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Luke Dashjr  wrote:
> On Saturday, September 05, 2015 11:17:52 AM Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> The "namespace" defined in BIP43 is acceptable. BIP44's is not:
>>
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki#Registered_c
>> oin_types
>>
>> It defines a centralized registry controlld by a single company instead of
>> having a way for different companies (or p2p chains like namecoin?) to
>> maintain competing registries.
>>
>> Even better, it could use a code deterministically generated from the chain
>> ID (the hash of the genesis block), completely removing the need for a
>> registry in the first place.
>
> No, because different chains may very well use the same genesis block.

Can you read my reasoning here?
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/010861.html
What I propose is retro-compatible, even for carelessly designed
chains (that allowed pre-mining) like FTC.
And provides securely unique IDs that don't require a centralized registry.

Maybe I should start a Chain IDs BIP...
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[bitcoin-dev] Problem compiling bitcoin-core

[LinuXperia via bitcoin-dev]

Hi.

I am trying to compile bitcoin core on my ubuntu Linux machine as follow:

./autogen.sh

./configure 
CPPFLAGS="-I/media/linuxperia/mydata/Projects/bitcoi/depends/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/include/ 
-O2" 
LDFLAGS="-L/media/linuxperia/mydata/Projects/bitcoin/depends/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/" 
--without-gui


make

but i am getting always this Build Error message here!
What i am doing wrong ?
How can i fix this build problem so i am able to run the Bitcoin-core 
Node on my Machine ?


Thanks in advance for your helpful solution tips!

   CXXLDbitcoind
libbitcoin_server.a(libbitcoin_server_a-init.o): In function 
`boost::filesystem::path::path(boost::filesystem::directory_entry 
const&, 
boost::enable_if, 
void>::type*)':
/media/linuxperia/mydata/Projects/bitcoin/depends/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/include/boost/filesystem/path.hpp:140: 
undefined reference to 
`boost::filesystem::path_traits::dispatch(boost::filesystem::directory_entry 
const&, std::__cxx11::basic_string&)'

libbitcoin_util.a(libbitcoin_util_a-util.o): In function `GetNumCores()':
/media/linuxperia/mydata/Projects/bitcoin/src/util.cpp:825: undefined 
reference to `boost::thread::physical_concurrency()'
libbitcoin_util.a(libbitcoin_util_a-util.o): In function 
`boost::program_options::detail::basic_config_file_iterator::getline(std::__cxx11::basic_string&)':
/media/linuxperia/mydata/Projects/bitcoin/depends/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/include/boost/program_options/detail/config_file.hpp:161: 
undefined reference to 
`boost::program_options::to_internal(std::__cxx11::basic_string const&)'
libbitcoin_util.a(libbitcoin_util_a-util.o): In function 
`boost::program_options::detail::basic_config_file_iterator::basic_config_file_iterator(std::istream&, 
std::set, std::less >, 
std::allocator > > const&, bool)':
/media/linuxperia/mydata/Projects/bitcoin/depends/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/include/boost/program_options/detail/config_file.hpp:145: 
undefined reference to 
`boost::program_options::detail::common_config_file_iterator::common_config_file_iterator(std::set, 
std::less >, 
std::allocator > > const&, bool)'
libbitcoin_wallet.a(libbitcoin_wallet_a-walletdb.o): In function 
`boost::filesystem::copy_file(boost::filesystem::path const&, 
boost::filesystem::path const&, boost::filesystem::copy_option::enum_type)':
/media/linuxperia/mydata/Projects/bitcoin/depends/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/include/boost/filesystem/operations.hpp:497: 
undefined reference to 
`boost::filesystem::detail::copy_file(boost::filesystem::path const&, 
boost::filesystem::path const&, boost::filesystem::detail::copy_option, 
boost::system::error_code*)'

collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
Makefile:2620: recipe for target 'bitcoind' failed
make[2]: *** [bitcoind] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory '/media/linuxperia/mydata/Projects/bitcoin/src'
Makefile:6559: recipe for target 'all-recursive' failed
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory '/media/linuxperia/mydata/Projects/bitcoin/src'
Makefile:626: recipe for target 'all-recursive' failed
make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev